On Tue, 2016-01-12 at 16:48 +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> osstest service owner writes ("[xen-unstable test] 77827: regressions -
> FAIL"):
> > flight 77827 xen-unstable real [real]
> > http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/77827/
> >
> > Regressions :-(
> >
> > Tests which did not succeed and are blocking,
> > including tests which could not be run:
> > test-amd64-i386-xl-qemut-stubdom-debianhvm-amd64-xsm 9 debian-hvm-
> > install fail REGR. vs. 66879
>
> Looking at
>
> http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/results/history/test-amd64-
> i386-xl-qemut-stubdom-debianhvm-amd64-xsm/xen-unstable.html
>
> and
>
> http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/results/history/test-amd64-
> i386-xl-qemut-stubdom-debianhvm-amd64-xsm/ALL
>
> it seems that this test has been intermittently broken on most osstest
> branches for some time. 66879 was an [un]lucky pass. (The symptoms,
> and hence the specific test step which fails, seem to vary according
> to the host.)
>
> I am therefore going to force push this.
>
>
> We had a discussion on IRC. Several people were of the opinion that
> 32-bit stubdom will be hard to fix and that the effort won't be worth
> it.
FWIW I agree.
> If we are going to abandon this then we should switch to 64-bit
> stubdom dm in 32-bit dom0 configurations, and certainly not any longer
> build a probably-broken 32-bit stubdom dm along with the 32-bit tools.
Full ack, particularly the second half.
Ian.
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
